One could also argue that production might be going well/better than expected for Sony but this would really only be circumstantial evidence for that.

there's really nothing difficult to build in the ps4 at all is there? I'd be surprised if they didn't have tons to sell at launch.

The AMD APU is a new part even if it is a standard AMD design, so yield could possibly be lower for PS4 chips than for other more mature AMD parts.

But MS gambled and (allegedly) lost in the short term by using their fancy ESRAM design to cut costs. Shades of them cutting costs on the 360's cooling solution, but it will probably work in their favor (cost-wise anyway) in the long term.

Also, pretty much every new product has a shakedown period in manufacturing where you're working out the production glitches even if you're putting together completely off the shelf components. Some things just don't become evident until you get it on the floor and have to do it 100M times in repetition.

So of course you can choose to disbelieve the MS Exec comments (because we can't really verify anything as true either way), but saw in this Kotaku story that Microsoft officials did confirm that family sharing was not time limited:

I'm hoping these features will eventually reappear down the line as they sound like they could be very convenient for my circle of friends.

Honestly, we will never know the truth either way because these huge programs that involve multiple companies are rarely easy to put together. It's entirely possible the pastebin author AND cboat AND the execs were telling the truth as best they knew it. Not everyone gets the same information in a big project, and even the people up top or the group who originates the idea are often left out of the loop. I've heard these stories over and over from friends in the movie, music and games business.

Whatever happened is done, the dirty backstories can only, at best, give us an idea of where things are going. At worst, they're troll bait that dilutes good debate.

I don't know why people still think this was about killing Gamestop. They are crap and the original policy would've outright FORCED Xbone owners to deal with them if they wanted to trade in games.

Not necessarily. It would have forced people to trade in their games with Microsoft-approved resellers. There's no evidence that GameStop had yet signed on to Microsoft's plan, and every reason to believe otherwise - MS would have been trumpeting a GameStop partnership to the skies if they'd managed to wrangle it.

Edit no price cut to go alongside... is "competitively priced" & xbox is "confident with the value."

That to me says it's not mandatory to connect it. It's still going to ship with every unit, however, which would be why there's no price cut.

Better and better news for me if the game library is there to justify me picking one up when it's down to the $299 range. I can leave the Kinect in the box, I can buy/sell/trade disc based games and I can basically treat it just like my Xbox 360.

If this is true then it's a reason to admire GameStop. I had no idea they had that much clout.

You've been saying throughout the thread you think used games are a publisher scapegoat with little impact on the industry, and yet you do not understand the closest thing the used market has to a monopoly? Have you never looked at Gamestop's financials? Even amongst people whose livelihoods depend on the health of the industry there's debate. Your certainty Gamestop isn't a problem seems uninformed at best. They are definitely A problem, just not the ONLY problem.

it usually boils down to "they buy games for cheap and then put em on the shelves for 5$ less than new". how in the world is that gamestop's fault? the customer can jsut pick up the new copy and pay the extra 5$. hell, my buddy bought twilight princess on release and gamestop tried to get him to buy the 45$ copy over the 49$ new and he told them to fuck off. how hard is that?

if 5$ is a mental barrier that will make someone choose a gamestop used copy of cod:1000 opposed to a new copy then, imo, the price is too high in the first place. this isn't gamestop's fault. it's the game consumer's fault. little johnny #faghater playing cod:1beelion on live that bought his copy from gamestop for 5$ off is your villan. don't blame gamestop.

But it is NOT a $5 difference. Gamestop has taken such complete control of the used games market that most people, including you, can't even see what used games cost when Gamestop is removed from the equation. It is important to understand that Gamestop keeps the price of older games far higher than they would otherwise cost right now from other retailers. As recently as 2012, those used games that GS sells for $20-39 used to cost $10-25 at my nearby indie shop. THAT was the price difference between Gamestop and their competitors. Most games are also shorter these days which means we buy more of them to occupy the same amount of time. Add that all up as a consumer who buys ~5-15 games per year, and it's no wonder why console games jumped to $60 and PC to $50 (not that Gamestop was the only reason. Ballooning game budgets and the slow death of retail competition factors in, too). For a person with lots of disposable income $10-20 difference per game probably doesn't matter, but in my case it's definitely changed how I buy games.

For people too young to remember what things were like before Gamestop became your local #1, I do remember, because in 2012, I still had an indie used games retailer here in Los Angeles and they had been in business for over ~20 years IIRC. No pushy salespeople, lame club memberships, or drama about not preordering. They even had 3 TVs and monitors hooked up to PC and consoles with chairs for you to demo games. People would hang out there all the time. Their used games prices were anywhere from 30-70% cheaper than Gamestop. Didn't matter how old or new either. A brand new recently released Halo/CoD/Battlefield would usually sell for $40-45. Prices used to be even better back when we had ~10 nearby indie shops, but as the retail chains took control, the indie shops died off one by one just like your local hardware store or grocery. Finally, last year my last local indie games shop died which is ridiculous because in Los Angeles, good indie shops are able to thrive in almost any industry (we still have local hardware shops and tons of farmer's markets). THIS is the dominance of Gamestop exemplified; significantly better pricing isn't enough to keep competitors in business versus GS' selection, magazine, and 6000+ locations.

And how about those escalating prices on new games, is that really all just the publishers doing (no) or do Walmart/BB/GS have a say (yes)? In the cartridge days prices were high because of onboard memory, and gamers also expected a lot more playtime much like we do today from an Elder Scrolls game. Those prices plummeted with the first Playstation's move to CD, and DVD kept that pricing. The release of the ps3/x360 moved things back up to $60 pricing and PC games to $50, a timeframe which coincides quite neatly with Gamestop's rise to utter dominance over their few remaining rivals (mainly Electronics Boutique) and WoW taking a stranglehold on PC game revenues. With the indie shops dead and the other retail chains an insignificant joke, it's been easy profits, low risk, and almost zero innovation ever since. Only really smart thing Gamestop has done in the past ~15 years was to create their own advertising packaged as a magazine AKA Game Informer.

End result: as someone who doesn't resale his games (which used to be the norm for damn near everyone I knew), I used to buy maybe 1/4 of my games used. Since used games were a helluva lot cheaper, that left a lot of money for brand new n64/SNES/Sega games and I have a TON of them. In the $60 x360/Wii era, I moved away from my PC and probably bought 1/2 of my games used from Craigslist or Gamestop, but that's dropped off considerably since I went back to using Steam/GoG/etc. If in the first 2 years of the ps4/xbone ddl doesn't drop prices on the consoles closer to Gamestop levels, fuck it. I'll probably surrender and:

I don't like how GS gouges people on used games, but that's their business model and they are no worse than any other corporation, and they do serve a purpose and fulfill a need. The fact that they were a factor in the DRM reversal is certainly to be admired.

Wasn't it obvious from the moment MS announced their plans Gamestop would be threatened? Several of us in this thread pointed it out, but a few people refused to believe it. About 30 pages ago in this thread, I was saying that to take on retailers, ESPECIALLY Gamestop whose core business revolves around used games, Microsoft needed publisher support and was clearly courting EA/Activision/etc. MS failed (for now) but Gamestop isn't to be admired (!!), they were fighting for survival vs dying the same slow death they handed out to local indie game shops, EB, Egghead etc.

Lastly, Gamestop is not evil nor all bad. There are a few very GOOD things about Gamestop, some of which are yin-yang with the bad. They have a location in every city so no need to wait on Amazon/Newegg. The centralized supply of games makes it easy to find any title. If your disc doesn't work, just bring it back no problem. The game publishers love that every customer who walks into a GS is there for the games industry, and sales won't be lost to movies, music, or other toys as in a Walmart or Toys R Us. Product displays on new games are front and center with no distractions from the latest Daft Punk album.

Gamestop is useful in some respects, but the huge markups They charge are a tax that is not worth what we would otherwise pay. I'd rather have the days of The Recycler/classifieds or the huge game libraries EVERYONE used to have so we could all just borrow from each other.

See, having to pay for a gold account isn't really FREE2play. It's still a great value for what you get, I'm just not sure MS will ever allow people to use their matchmaking servers etc without charging a fee up front. At least not UNTIL they see they'll make more money by doing so.

Oh is this what you meant by f2p not being available? I could see this going either way.

Arguing the semantics over whether that would be "f2p" isn't really interesting. I mean, you also can't play a f2p game without buying the console, buying internet, etc. So saying Gold is required for access doesn't necessarily negate the "f2p" label in my mind.

I wasn't trying to play at semantics, and disagreeing on what the definition of "free to play games" is hardly the same thing as excluding hardware and broadband connections to Xbox Live.

Anyhow, it seems I missed the threads discussing the concept of what "free to play" means. I'm touch and go and don't read every topic, and given how fast this thread flies, I wasn't trying to bait silly arguments. I thought my original posts on xbox f2p were clear. Sorry for wasting you fellas time.

The whole used-games-is-stealing-from-the-devs idea that Xavin is pushing misses one incredibly critical point:

The resale value of a game is considered in purchasing decisions.

I've known a lot of people that flip their games after they've had it for a few weeks, if they've played it to their contentment, or don't really like it. And they immediately use that credit to buy another new game. If the ability to resell the new games they buy suddenly disappeared, they wouldn't keep buying as many new games, they'd just buy fewer.

I see this overlooked a lot (mostly by publishers), but removing right of resale actively diminishes the value of the good, which is why you need aggressive pricing (like Steam) to make up for it.

++ and thank you. I wish I'd seen you post earlier, woulda saved me a lot of typing.

The whole used-games-is-stealing-from-the-devs idea that Xavin is pushing misses one incredibly critical point:

The resale value of a game is considered in purchasing decisions.

I've known a lot of people that flip their games after they've had it for a few weeks, if they've played it to their contentment, or don't really like it. And they immediately use that credit to buy another new game. If the ability to resell the new games they buy suddenly disappeared, they wouldn't keep buying as many new games, they'd just buy fewer.

I see this overlooked a lot (mostly by publishers), but removing right of resale actively diminishes the value of the good, which is why you need aggressive pricing (like Steam) to make up for it.

++ and thank you. I wish I'd seen you post earlier, woulda saved me a lot of typing.

++ For me as well, and while I rarely sell my games, I frequently buy older games that I missed the first time around and are no longer available through regular retail.

And for all of you who want to trade in your old games but hate GameStop, head on over to www.goozex.com. Its a peer-to-peer trading site where you get a LOT more bang for your buck for your trades.

It's not even the consumer's fault. They could just put a key for additional stuff if you buy the game new. People will choose new with more stuff than five bucks. After all they are buying the game cause they want it and more content will prevent most fans from buying a used copy.

That's what online passes and such were. It's not exactly a popular system with gamers.

I was under the idea that online passes were specifically referring to Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space online only being available to new game buyers or you bought an unlock DLC. I'm talking about Mass Effect 2 and Batman bonus costumes and stuff like that.

(removed lengthy screed over how GameStop has killed the indie used game stores)

Sorry, it wasn't GameStop that killed the indie used game stores, it was used game customers. No one forces you to sell your games to GameStop rather than an indie store. If people preferred to sell their games to Gamestop over other options that paid them more, it's because GameStop offered them something else that made it worth it.

I pointed out some of the things they've done well, but meh. My rant is because I saw comments from people who have little to no experience with what the used games market looks like when there's stronger competition. The $5 difference between brand new and barely used titles did not exist until Gamestop got to their dominant position (at least not in any of the cities I've lived in).

The easiest way for publishers to kill the used game market is to make it unprofitable to sell used games.

The PC "used games market" which existed in some limited capacity was swiftly killed off when Steam arrived. People don't buy used games because they're used (that's actually a negative in most people's minds), they buy them because they're not willing to pay full retail price. If/when publishers begin to understand that they can easily get that money with more dynamic pricing (which is easily facilitated through a digital marketplace), the used game market won't be able to court people with price.

Granted, there are always going to be people who absolutely won't buy digital. They don't buy MP3s, they don't purchase streaming movies, and they aren't interested in a digital library of games. Some of those people are irrational, and others have good points (I can't sell/trade a digital game). But there's no future in physical media. Look at the music industry -- the trends are obvious. There's no reason why digital games won't follow suit (as long as the infrastructure is there).

Microsoft had an ambitious goal, and I seriously doubt they're going to completely drop their plans to facilitate a more digital-friendly storefront. I can see a phased roll-out over the course of the next couple of years (and yeah, it'll probably be tied to Gold as a value-add service). But I'm sure they realized that you need to get the console into people's hands first, and let them make the decision (and not the stores holding your pre-orders for ransom). If Microsoft can aggressively price digital versions of games and decouple them from their physical counterparts, I can see a "180" in a lot of naysayer's futures.

(removed lengthy screed over how GameStop has killed the indie used game stores)

Sorry, it wasn't GameStop that killed the indie used game stores, it was used game customers. No one forces you to sell your games to GameStop rather than an indie store. If people preferred to sell their games to Gamestop over other options that paid them more, it's because GameStop offered them something else that made it worth it.

I disagree, indie games stores were killed off because larger retailers came in and they couldn't compete with the pricing, there were also many video game store chains too like EB, and Babbages which GameStop bought and ruined.

So while GameStop may not have killed the indie used game stores on its own. By buying up pretty much all of its competition by buying out the other chains it did pretty much cornered the market. So the used game customer you are blaming doesn't really have any choice but GameStop.

I don't know why it is so hard for some people to accept that MS drm plans had no real benefits to consumers.

I don't believe that MS DRM plans were just doing the bidding of publishers or someone else(the "Poor MS" argument), or to save the industry from used games sales(the "white knight" argument), or that if everyone just went along with it then it would have lead to great new undisclosed benefits at some unknown point in the future(the "naive/delusional" argument).

MS DRM plan I believe wasn't a plan to stop used gaming it was MS beginning to turn the Xbox on the software side to a completely closed ecosystem no different than WinRT and gaming retailers would just be selling points/cash cards. The problem is that MS doesn't have the retail strength to pull it off at this point.

If want MS to succeed in this plan then you should be supporting a classic MS move of simply buying out anyone who opposes you and MS should buy GameStop and transition them into MS stores.

Indie stores in general have been going away, doesn't really matter the industry. Some are still around, mostly in clothing but generally they are being pushed out in favour of chains. I think the problem every game store faces, including GS is lack of margin in new titles. A pure gaming store is just not sustainable on new games/hardware alone.

How many people plan to buy both consoles? There's an awful lot of argument about 'who will win' but personally I couldn't care, as I simply plan to enjoy both.

There seems to be an ever shrinking need to own both a Sony and Microsoft system at this point. 95% of the games are going to be multi-platform and "Xbox Exclusive" is more like "Microsoft Exclusive" nowadays, if the game itself isn't published by MS it's going to end up on the PC at the very least. Stuff like Halo and Forza will likely remain Xbox One exclusive, but they aren't the games that would drive me to a specific console at this point.

Looking at the games I play on console still, which is mostly fighting games and JRPG's, PS4 will be the better value there since everything but Killer Instinct will be on both platforms for fighters and Japan has proven time and again about how they do not give a fuck about porting JRPG's to Xbox. PS4 being the more powerful system also means that on any cross platform game I will be getting the slightly better version, much like how Xbox 360 almost always had the better version of crossplatform games last gen.

How many people plan to buy both consoles? There's an awful lot of argument about 'who will win' but personally I couldn't care, as I simply plan to enjoy both.

I've already ordered a PS4 because I very much enjoyed PS3 exclusives and I want more of the same. Since I don't care for shooters, if mentally I can forget about Forza, then most of the reasons for an Xbox go away for me.

Almost every 3rd party title will be multiplatform to begin with, or a timed exclusive, and I hope developers make the effort to make them look better on PS4. For 1st party studios, I expect Sony will have the better games for my taste.

1.5Mbps, note the little b. ISPs use the little b because they can get bigger numbers for their advertisements, but its completely misleading.

Not really. It's serial communication. Serial communication is measured in bits per second. It also happens to be larger numbers so it's good in advertising. It's not misleading except to those who don't understand network communications.

So in other words, its misleading except to those who are in the know about such specifics? Sounds like textbook marketing misdirection taking advantage of a lack of expert knowledge.

Joe Schmoe ain't no Network Engineer. Joe Schmoe confuses the huge difference between MB and Mb when he downloads a file and its speed is measured using MBps/KBps instead of Mbps/Kbps, thus believing that 1.5 Mbps is the same thing as 1.5MBps. This is something that ISPs are all too aware of, and don't hesitate to take advantage of.

How many people plan to buy both consoles? There's an awful lot of argument about 'who will win' but personally I couldn't care, as I simply plan to enjoy both.

I don't really have the time anymore to invest in all the consoles and get the value out of it. So I'll probably be sticking with PS4 + PC, and likely add a WiiU to the mix when it hits my magic price point of around $200-$250.

It's not even the consumer's fault. They could just put a key for additional stuff if you buy the game new. People will choose new with more stuff than five bucks. After all they are buying the game cause they want it and more content will prevent most fans from buying a used copy.

That's what online passes and such were. It's not exactly a popular system with gamers.

I was under the idea that online passes were specifically referring to Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space online only being available to new game buyers or you bought an unlock DLC. I'm talking about Mass Effect 2 and Batman bonus costumes and stuff like that.

I think people often use the term to cover those cases as well because it's all basically part of the same idea. Have some content which isn't accessible unless you buy new or pay $10. And IME gamers' reaction to the single-player versions was even worse than the multiplayer ones.

How many people plan to buy both consoles? There's an awful lot of argument about 'who will win' but personally I couldn't care, as I simply plan to enjoy both.

I'll buy both so I can play all exclusives. Most likely xbone first since it's got the only launch title (Dead Rising 3) that interests me besides Watch Dogs, but especially so I can skip the stale BF/CoD multiplayer fps till Titanfall and Destiny release. Sometime in 2014 I'll pick up a ps4. Fuck the Wii U (I say that now, but Nintendo ALWAYS sucks me in, dammit).

How many people plan to buy both consoles? There's an awful lot of argument about 'who will win' but personally I couldn't care, as I simply plan to enjoy both.

I'll buy both so I can play all exclusives. Most likely xbone first since it's got the only launch title (Dead Rising 3) that interests me besides Watch Dogs, but especially so I can skip the stale BF/CoD multiplayer fps till Titanfall and Destiny release. Sometime in 2014 I'll pick up a ps4. Fuck the Wii U (I say that now, but Nintendo ALWAYS sucks me in, dammit).

I disagree, indie games stores were killed off because larger retailers came in and they couldn't compete with the pricing, there were also many video game store chains too like EB, and Babbages which GameStop bought and ruined.

So while GameStop may not have killed the indie used game stores on its own. By buying up pretty much all of its competition by buying out the other chains it did pretty much cornered the market. So the used game customer you are blaming doesn't really have any choice but GameStop.

Huh? Coconutboy just said that his indie store had lower prices than GameStop, and people to this day still complain about Gamestop's high used game margins. So there must be somewhere an indie store can fit in under that.

How many people plan to buy both consoles? There's an awful lot of argument about 'who will win' but personally I couldn't care, as I simply plan to enjoy both.

Now that the X1's DRM has been rolled back, I look forward to adding both a PS4 and X1 next to my Wii U in the pile under my TV.

It sort of fascinates me how little interest I have in the Wii U. Typically, my bar for buying a console is pretty low - if there's even one game that's really compelling (or if I expect it to be the home of several survival horror titles), I'm on board. I bought a Dreamcast for Crazy Taxi 2, for example.

But the Wii U hasn't even managed to cross my disturbingly low bar for interest. The tablet controller actively dissuades me, for reasons that I can't really articulate. It's possible, of course, that if I actually use one at some point, I'll be sold - but among my friend group, I am far and away the most likely to take a flier on a console.

All that said, I've got pre-orders in for both the PS4 (Watchdogs bundle) and XBone.

How many people plan to buy both consoles? There's an awful lot of argument about 'who will win' but personally I couldn't care, as I simply plan to enjoy both.

Now that the X1's DRM has been rolled back, I look forward to adding both a PS4 and X1 next to my Wii U in the pile under my TV.

It sort of fascinates me how little interest I have in the Wii U. Typically, my bar for buying a console is pretty low - if there's even one game that's really compelling (or if I expect it to be the home of several survival horror titles), I'm on board. I bought a Dreamcast for Crazy Taxi 2, for example.

But the Wii U hasn't even managed to cross my disturbingly low bar for interest. The tablet controller actively dissuades me, for reasons that I can't really articulate. It's possible, of course, that if I actually use one at some point, I'll be sold - but among my friend group, I am far and away the most likely to take a flier on a console.

All that said, I've got pre-orders in for both the PS4 (Watchdogs bundle) and XBone.

A few friends of mine got the WiiU and I tried out the controller it is remarkably nifty to the point that my friends plays more on the controller than using it with the TV. I mentioned the poor battery life and they just plug it in when it gets low.

Only two games for the WiiU that are of remote interest at this point. The new Xenoblade and Bayonetta. I am sure the next Zelda will be a decent game.

And I'm certainly not making any kind of bold statement that I'll never buy a Wii U; Zelda could certainly make me cave. Though to be honest, I still haven't played Skyward Sword, so it's possible I'm over the Zelda franchise (and now my twelve-year-old self is winding up for a dickpunch).

If they were to release an exclusive Silent Hill title, though, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Shattered Memories was very close to being a perfect Silent Hill game, using the Wii's controller extraordinarily well.

How many people plan to buy both consoles? There's an awful lot of argument about 'who will win' but personally I couldn't care, as I simply plan to enjoy both.

I have a gaming PC along with my PS2, PS3, 360. So far the X1 titles that interest me (Titanfall, Spark) will be on PC too so I would only be getting a PS4. If MS gets something exclusive like a Crackdown 3 that's good (unlike 2) then I'll buy it too.

Nintendo has plenty of franchises to make the WiiU compelling if you find the franchises compelling. With Miyamoto saying he wants to beef up their development staff. It would be interesting if they brought on the staff to develop more titles focused at the older crowd. Take a page out of Sony's book where there is quite the range of first party titles they are working on.

I was playing NSMBW and DKCR on the family Wii today and it reminded me how fun the staple Nintendo franchises can be. Lots of fun in the SNES and getting much better graphics on the Wii and the ability to play with friends at the same time really adds to the fun.

I could see myself getting a Wii U when it goes down in the future for HD versions of the franchises.

How many people plan to buy both consoles? There's an awful lot of argument about 'who will win' but personally I couldn't care, as I simply plan to enjoy both.

I have a gaming PC along with my PS2, PS3, 360. So far the X1 titles that interest me (Titanfall, Spark) will be on PC too so I would only be getting a PS4.

That's basically where I stand: I have a serviceable gaming pc already hooked to the TV so I can stream stuff. With so many XBox games also coming to the PC, that hardware is largely surplus to requirements. PS4, on the other hand, serves the purpose of letting me play a wider variety of exclusive content I likely can't get on the PC. Mind you, I'm not likely getting anything until mid-next year at the soonest.

Interesting thing about this launch is whether or not Japan will be a factor. If you liked Japanese franchises they will likely appear mostly on the PS4 and WiiU. I think the PS3 had the lion share this gen of JRPG exclusives. PS4 will likely continue the trend, although I have to say I haven't bought a JRPG in ages; if they have improved combat beyond the clunky action/turn based style I might pick some up.

Interesting thing about this launch is whether or not Japan will be a factor. If you liked Japanese franchises they will likely appear mostly on the PS4 and WiiU. I think the PS3 had the lion share this gen of JRPG exclusives. PS4 will likely continue the trend, although I have to say I haven't bought a JRPG in ages; if they have improved combat beyond the clunky action/turn based style I might pick some up.

Kingdom Hearts 3 and FF15 are both action/adventure RPGs for the PS4. Technically they will also be available for the XB1 as well.